Legal Opinion
Acevedo v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 9, 2016No. 2015-5126PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PROST, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Salma Acevedo et al. (“Appellants”) allege that the United States violated 5 U.S.C. § 5928 by refusing to provide them with danger pay allowances. The Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) held that it lacked jurisdiction over the case because § 5928 and its implementing regulations are not money-mandating, as required for the court to possess jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Acevedo v. United States, 121 Fed.Cl. 57, 59 (2015). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the Claims Court’s ruling.
Background
The Appellants in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- John Doe v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Iqbal M. Khan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- percipient.ai, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2024
- Pds Consultants, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- King v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Reyes Colon v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Sacchetti v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.